G/A below minima
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some wise answers here.
When flying around critical terrain, always have your Engine-fail escape route ready and planned-for is an advice that I have been given years ago, and follow. Although the Engine-fail procedure is theoretically only valid when your failure happens at V1, it IS the procedure with the best margins, PROVIDED THAT ATC IS ADVICED AND AWARE. THis can't be stressed enough.
This is a good discussion so please don't hold back, give your opinion, be advicate-of the-devil (like I often play by suggesting "alternative" views) and we'll all learn.
When flying around critical terrain, always have your Engine-fail escape route ready and planned-for is an advice that I have been given years ago, and follow. Although the Engine-fail procedure is theoretically only valid when your failure happens at V1, it IS the procedure with the best margins, PROVIDED THAT ATC IS ADVICED AND AWARE. THis can't be stressed enough.
This is a good discussion so please don't hold back, give your opinion, be advicate-of the-devil (like I often play by suggesting "alternative" views) and we'll all learn.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully my company Perf Manual is very clear on this subject. It states:
In the event of a single engine missed approach from below MDA the aircraft should be flown to the departure end of the runway and the engine out Obstacle Clearance Procedure followed to ensure terrain clearance.
Seems pretty clear to me and now means that I include the OCP in my single engine approach briefing, just in case.
In the event of a single engine missed approach from below MDA the aircraft should be flown to the departure end of the runway and the engine out Obstacle Clearance Procedure followed to ensure terrain clearance.
Seems pretty clear to me and now means that I include the OCP in my single engine approach briefing, just in case.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 'tween posts
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmm...
Sciolistes,
unfotunately I do not have a ready reference to attach or quote.
it is my understanding that cerification requirement for approach climb gradient one engine inop:-
is 2.1% for twins, 2.4% for 3eng, and2.7% for 4eng a/c.(from ATPL days)
Doc8168 refers to the 2.5% used to establish procedures and charts.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
cheers
unfotunately I do not have a ready reference to attach or quote.
it is my understanding that cerification requirement for approach climb gradient one engine inop:-
is 2.1% for twins, 2.4% for 3eng, and2.7% for 4eng a/c.(from ATPL days)
Doc8168 refers to the 2.5% used to establish procedures and charts.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
cheers
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference is EU OPS 1.510
The landing weight of the aircraft shall not exceed the maximum landing weight specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate airport.
For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2.5%, the expected landing mass of the aeroplane shall allow a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one- engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed.
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*)
For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, the approach weight of the aeroplane, taking into account the take-off weight and the fuel expected to be consumed in flight, must allow a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2.5%, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater.
(*) The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach should be considered.
As an alternative method, an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height and/or a contingency procedure providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved.
Taking into account the regulations following the contingency procedure for go around is an option provided it's approved and published in the manual or if PIC regards it to be the safest coure of actions.
P.S there's two requirements:
approach climb assuming OEI and gear up etc requiring 2,1 %
landing climb assuming normal config and gear down 3,2 %
For all Airbus aircraft, this constraint is covered by the approach climb requirement. In its operational documentation (FCOM), Airbus publishes the maximum weight limited by the approach climb gradient only. Landing climb performance is found in the AFM. Those are just certification requirements.
Compliance with a published MA climb gradient must be evaluated for the very concrete approach with valid data. Keeping contingency procedure for a EO in case of a go around is always IMHO a must.
The landing weight of the aircraft shall not exceed the maximum landing weight specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate airport.
For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2.5%, the expected landing mass of the aeroplane shall allow a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one- engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed.
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*)
For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, the approach weight of the aeroplane, taking into account the take-off weight and the fuel expected to be consumed in flight, must allow a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2.5%, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater.
(*) The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach should be considered.
As an alternative method, an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height and/or a contingency procedure providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved.
Taking into account the regulations following the contingency procedure for go around is an option provided it's approved and published in the manual or if PIC regards it to be the safest coure of actions.
P.S there's two requirements:
approach climb assuming OEI and gear up etc requiring 2,1 %
landing climb assuming normal config and gear down 3,2 %
For all Airbus aircraft, this constraint is covered by the approach climb requirement. In its operational documentation (FCOM), Airbus publishes the maximum weight limited by the approach climb gradient only. Landing climb performance is found in the AFM. Those are just certification requirements.
Compliance with a published MA climb gradient must be evaluated for the very concrete approach with valid data. Keeping contingency procedure for a EO in case of a go around is always IMHO a must.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All sounds very complicated! Its much clearer in my little 421, the placard on the side wall says'" To maintain level flight with one engine inop, speed must be above Blue Line {110kts} gear retracted, flaps retracted, inop engine prop fully feathered, truck or no truck on the Piste, we are landing once that gear is out, now isnt that much more simple than all this technical bafflegab?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we teach in the sim is that with one engine out (assuming a twin) you are an emergancy a/c and as such it's perfectly reasonable to request an alternate MAP if the published involves any immediate turns. Certainly the a/c may be capable but the pilot is already involved in a heavy worload so why exacerbate the situation ?
The request to ATC should be made prior to the approach not at the missed approach point.
The request to ATC should be made prior to the approach not at the missed approach point.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must consider that some airports do not have an alternative go-around, some of the horse shoe valleys for instance and the EO SID is based on a DME and Speed and ALT, if you are going to execute this as an alternative, or even consider doing so, It should be briefed and as much of it set up in advance, even if it's just radials form the fix pages. Somewhere like CMF is a strictly disciplined affair or a crash..
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so now we have an engine out, a need to go around below minimums, and an unusual engine out sid that we are going to pre-brief!
I would be interested to know:
a) In the last 20 years how many aircraft have had to go around below minimums?
b) How many of those were OEI?
c) How many of those were at an airfield with unusual terrain?
d) How many aircraft were eaten by Godzilla type sea monsters?
My guess is that d = c
I would be interested to know:
a) In the last 20 years how many aircraft have had to go around below minimums?
b) How many of those were OEI?
c) How many of those were at an airfield with unusual terrain?
d) How many aircraft were eaten by Godzilla type sea monsters?
My guess is that d = c
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many aircraft had an engine fail @ V1?
Is your suggestion that we do not discuss that scenario either?
Is your suggestion that we do not discuss that scenario either?
But a double engine failure after V1 when taking off from an aircraft carrier isn't.
There is no performance standard for a OEI missed approach from below minima.
The only requirement from below minima is landing climb for which the aircraft is certified to make a 3.2% gradient.
Why would anyone be taking a jet OEI into an airfield with dodgy terrain? and not securing the runway before commencing approach?
We could make up ridiculous scenarios all day to discuss but they are of little or no benefit when half the audience doesn't know what the aircraft is certified to do or what assumptions various procedures use.
Much better to make sure we can all do the stuff that is likely to happen properly. If that day ever comes then we can move on to the unlikely and eventually the ridiculous.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
Yet artificial horizons company chooses to includes it in their perf manual.
1. What gives you the right to accuse half the audiences of not knowing?
2. How do you decide what is likely or not? Funny that you mention double engine failure when taking of from an aircraft carrier as there is a procedure for that ;-) Albeit military, I don't think ICAO remembered any civilian aircraft carriers. What would you think the ASDA is on a carrier since you assume there is a V1? I propose you did not think that one through.
Might I remind you FE, that not all operate aircraft as new as your E170 and some have grandfathers rights as the aircraft design is old?
With regards to assuring a clear runway you can NEVER do that. Where did you do your ATPL training? Not everybody operate on fixed routes either.
Apart from that, it would be great if you could issue you rules for what one may post so that one doesn't make the mistake of posting something you do not find worthwhile in the future. Until then thanks to those giving good answers.
1. What gives you the right to accuse half the audiences of not knowing?
2. How do you decide what is likely or not? Funny that you mention double engine failure when taking of from an aircraft carrier as there is a procedure for that ;-) Albeit military, I don't think ICAO remembered any civilian aircraft carriers. What would you think the ASDA is on a carrier since you assume there is a V1? I propose you did not think that one through.
Might I remind you FE, that not all operate aircraft as new as your E170 and some have grandfathers rights as the aircraft design is old?
With regards to assuring a clear runway you can NEVER do that. Where did you do your ATPL training? Not everybody operate on fixed routes either.
Apart from that, it would be great if you could issue you rules for what one may post so that one doesn't make the mistake of posting something you do not find worthwhile in the future. Until then thanks to those giving good answers.
Last edited by Blackcoffeenosugar; 15th Feb 2010 at 21:42. Reason: Sensorship from FE Hoppy
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, it helps just to concentrate on the subject itself. The points brought up here are valid in both ways: on one hand we're talking about aircraft's certification requirements, which must be kept within some reasonable boundaries (e.g dual engine flame out on a twin during takeoff is not part of certification whereas dual flame out in cruise is), on the other hand there's legal requirements bounding the operator regardless of a/c's certification requirements to ensure safe operation as we saw in the relevant EU OPS 1.510
The bottom line here is aircraft's certification doesn't mean automatically safe operation, does it? All the rule says is that one must comply with the gradient, doesn't it? Regardless of the timing of EO the requirement is still very much valid. EO might occur at any time in real life, there's no guaranties. It's up to the operator how safe the operation runs. On the other hand there's always money at stake. The ruling allows the operator safe operation using alternative methods (using the EOSID for GA) in order to retain max payload. It's far simpler in reality as we try to picture it. A serious operator takes care of GA performance for each and every RWY it operates and makes it accessible to the crew. All the pilot has to do is simply have a look at the GA performance layout and decide what to do when it comes to that. No brainer at all.
The bottom line here is aircraft's certification doesn't mean automatically safe operation, does it? All the rule says is that one must comply with the gradient, doesn't it? Regardless of the timing of EO the requirement is still very much valid. EO might occur at any time in real life, there's no guaranties. It's up to the operator how safe the operation runs. On the other hand there's always money at stake. The ruling allows the operator safe operation using alternative methods (using the EOSID for GA) in order to retain max payload. It's far simpler in reality as we try to picture it. A serious operator takes care of GA performance for each and every RWY it operates and makes it accessible to the crew. All the pilot has to do is simply have a look at the GA performance layout and decide what to do when it comes to that. No brainer at all.
Hi.
While on a normal approach the application of an OEI procedure in relation to a rejected landing is excessive, a loss of engine and a rejected landing or vv can happen. For an OEI approach, it would be prudent to ensure that the rejected landing case performance is assured.
The FAA position is it ACCEPTS OEI procedures, JAR/EU OPS is somewhat different.
Under PANS OPS, (ICAO Doc 8168) procedures do occasionally have altered minima due to G/A gradient issues, HKG 07L/R ILS being one example. (Under TERPS, I am not certain that is to be the case).
An OEI missed approach commenced from the published minima should usually be assured terrain separation by design, (but with the broad caveat of IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)], shown below).
In the case that the aircraft descends below the minima during the missed approach, that is part of the design for DH operations. Where a late go around/rejected landing occurs, then it is prudent under FAA and required by JAR to follow a procedure that assures terrain separation. Separation is not assured by TERPS/PANS OPS in such a case, so it is reasonable to follow the OEI procedure if published. If no OEI procedure is published, and the operation is a Part 121/135 or similar, JAR-OPS1/EU-OPS 1, then the operator is obliged to have assessed OEI procedures, and no procedure should mean no obstacles exist that affect OEI operations.... in a properly functioning system at least. If you end up going into an airport not analysed by your company on one engine, I would suggest a fairly close look at the charts for obstacles, or ask for information from ATC if time/workload permits.
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be
approved] [ ]. IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Do note that the OEI procedure does not assure the same terrain clearance that PANS OPS/TERPS procedures do for normal operations.
Stuff does happen, and usually at the most inopportune time.
(The certification criteria for the aircraft performance is in FAR 25 and CS-25, and the procedures for showing compliance are well stated in FAA AC 25-07A, and CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ).
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear."
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I Scene V (1564-1616)
Links:
AC 120-91 - Airport Obstacle Analysis - Document Information
References:
FAA AC120-OBS-11,
AC120-91 (by AFS-400)
FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
FAA Form 8260-10
JAR-OPS 1.510
JAR-OPS 1.495
JAR-AWO
JAR-OPS 1 AMC & IEN
CS-25
FAR 25
FAA AC 25-07A
CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ
IEM OPS 1.495(f) Engine failure procedures
JAR-OPS 1.495(f)
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
While on a normal approach the application of an OEI procedure in relation to a rejected landing is excessive, a loss of engine and a rejected landing or vv can happen. For an OEI approach, it would be prudent to ensure that the rejected landing case performance is assured.
The FAA position is it ACCEPTS OEI procedures, JAR/EU OPS is somewhat different.
Under PANS OPS, (ICAO Doc 8168) procedures do occasionally have altered minima due to G/A gradient issues, HKG 07L/R ILS being one example. (Under TERPS, I am not certain that is to be the case).
An OEI missed approach commenced from the published minima should usually be assured terrain separation by design, (but with the broad caveat of IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)], shown below).
In the case that the aircraft descends below the minima during the missed approach, that is part of the design for DH operations. Where a late go around/rejected landing occurs, then it is prudent under FAA and required by JAR to follow a procedure that assures terrain separation. Separation is not assured by TERPS/PANS OPS in such a case, so it is reasonable to follow the OEI procedure if published. If no OEI procedure is published, and the operation is a Part 121/135 or similar, JAR-OPS1/EU-OPS 1, then the operator is obliged to have assessed OEI procedures, and no procedure should mean no obstacles exist that affect OEI operations.... in a properly functioning system at least. If you end up going into an airport not analysed by your company on one engine, I would suggest a fairly close look at the charts for obstacles, or ask for information from ATC if time/workload permits.
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be
approved] [ ]. IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Do note that the OEI procedure does not assure the same terrain clearance that PANS OPS/TERPS procedures do for normal operations.
Stuff does happen, and usually at the most inopportune time.
(The certification criteria for the aircraft performance is in FAR 25 and CS-25, and the procedures for showing compliance are well stated in FAA AC 25-07A, and CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ).
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear."
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I Scene V (1564-1616)
Links:
AC 120-91 - Airport Obstacle Analysis - Document Information
References:
FAA AC120-OBS-11,
AC120-91 (by AFS-400)
FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
FAA Form 8260-10
JAR-OPS 1.510
JAR-OPS 1.495
JAR-AWO
JAR-OPS 1 AMC & IEN
CS-25
FAR 25
FAA AC 25-07A
CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ
IEM OPS 1.495(f) Engine failure procedures
JAR-OPS 1.495(f)
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Last edited by fdr; 17th Feb 2010 at 23:24. Reason: ref correct
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@fdr
I fail to see anywhere in a) your post and b) ops-1, any reference to a requirement to plan for a OEI landing climb.
There is no such performance standard nor procedural requirement.
Note: I speak from EASA EU standard as I'm not fully aware of FAA requirements.
There is no such performance standard nor procedural requirement.
Note: I speak from EASA EU standard as I'm not fully aware of FAA requirements.
FE Hop
"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
JAR/EU:
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] :
Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].
FAA:
AC120-91:
MISSED APPROACH VS REJECTED LANDING: A One-Engine-Inoperative Missed Approach Can Frequently Be Flown Following The Published Missed Approach Procedure. Rejected Landing May Require Some Other Procedure
FAA reqt for OEI procedures on Departure:
Sections*121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, And 135.398
"The Takeoff Flightpath Must Meet The Specified Obstacle Clearance Requirements In The Event Of An Engine Failure. CFR Part 97 Applies To Standard Instrument Approach Procedures"
AC120-91 preamble exclusions (Page 1):
The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are neither mandatory nor the only acceptable methods for ensuring compliance with the regulatory sections. Operators may use other methods if those methods are shown to provide the necessary level of safety and are acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This AC need not serve as the sole basis for determining whether an obstacle analysis program meets the intent of the regulations. However, the methods and guidelines described in this AC have been derived from extensive FAA and industry experience and are considered acceptable to the FAA when appropriately used. Mandatory words such as “shall” or “must” apply only to those who seek to demonstrate compliance to a specific rule by use of a method set out in this AC without deviation.
AC120-91 Page 15/20:
17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.
a. General.
(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.
NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.
(3) A distinction needs to be made between a missed approach and a rejected landing. A one-engine-inoperative missed approach from the minimum descent altitude (height) (MDA (H)), decision altitude (height) (DA (H)), or above can frequently be flown following the published missed approach procedure. A rejected landing from a lower altitude may require some other procedure (e.g., following the same one-engine-inoperative procedure as used for takeoff). In any case, the pilot should be advised of the appropriate course of action when the published missed approach procedure cannot be safely executed.
b. Assessment Considerations.
(1) Operators may accomplish such assessments generically for a particular runway, procedure, aircraft type, and expected performance, and need not perform this assessment for each specific flight. Operators may use simplifying assumptions to account for the transition, reconfiguration, and acceleration distances following go-around (e.g., use expected landing weights, anticipated landing flap settings).
(2) The operator should use the best available information or methods from applicable AFMs or supplementary information from aircraft or engine manufacturers. If performance or flightpath data are not otherwise available to support the necessary analysis from the above sources, the operator may develop, compute, demonstrate, or determine such information to the extent necessary to provide for safe obstacle clearance.
(3) The operational considerations should include:
(a) Go-around configuration transitions from approach to missed approach configuration, including expected flap settings and flap retraction procedures.
(b) Expected speed changes.
(c) Appropriate engine failure and shutdown (feathering if applicable) provisions, if the approach was assumed to be initiated with all engines operative.
(d) Any lateral differences of the missed approach flightpath from the corresponding takeoff flightpath.
(e) Suitable balked landing obstacle clearance until reaching instrument approach, missed approach, or en route procedurally protected airspace.
(f) Any performance or gradient loss during turning flight.
(g) Methods used for takeoff analysis (such as improved climb), one-engine-inoperative maximum angle climb, or other such techniques may be used.
(h) Operators may make obstacle clearance assumptions similar to those applied to corresponding takeoff flightpaths in the determination of net vertical flightpath clearance or lateral track obstacle clearance.
c. Assessment Conditions for Balked Landing.
(1) A “balked landing” starts at the end of the touchdown zone (TDZ). A TDZ typically is considered to be the first one-third of the available landing distance or 3,000 feet, whichever is less. When appropriate for the purposes of this provision, operators may propose to use a different designation for a TDZ. For example, alternate consideration of a TDZ may be appropriate for runways:
(a) That are less than 6,000 feet in length and which do not have standard TDZ markings;
(b) That are short and require special aircraft performance information or procedures for landing;
(c) That are for Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft; or
(d) Where markings or lighting dictate that a different TDZ designation would be more appropriate.
(2) An engine failure occurs at the initiation of the balked landing from an all-engines-operating configuration.
(3) Balked landing initiation speed > VREF or VGA (as applicable).
(4) Balked landing initiation height is equal to the specified elevation of the TDZ.
(5) Balked landing initiation configuration is normal landing flaps and gear down.
(6) At the initiation of the maneuver, all engines are at least in a spooled configuration.
d. “One-Way” Airports or Other Special Situations.
(1) Where obstacle clearance is determined by the operator to be critical, such as for:
(a) Airports in mountainous terrain that have runways that are used predominantly for landing in one direction and takeoff in the opposite direction (“one way in” and “opposite way out”); or
(b) Runways at which the planned landing weight is greater than the allowed takeoff weight.
(2) The operator should provide the following guidance to the flightcrew:
(a) The flightpath that provides the best ground track for obstacle clearance, and
(b) The maximum weight(s) at which a missed approach or rejected landing can safely be accomplished under various conditions of temperature, wind, and aircraft configuration.
18. ALTERNATE MEANS.
The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are not the only acceptable methods. An operator who desires to use an alternate means should submit an application to the CHDO. The application should describe the alternate assumptions, methods, and criteria to be used along with any other supporting documentation. The CHDO will forward the application through the FSDO (CMO/certificate management unit (CMU)) to the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, for review and approval, if appropriate.
ORIGINAL SIGNED by
Carol Giles for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service
suggest you contact:
FAA AFS-400, [email protected], or alternatively call:
(202) 385-4670
AFS-400 responsibilities:
Policies, Criteria, And Standards For Establishing And Maintaining Terminal And En Route Flight Procedures
Final Authority To Issue, Amend And Appeal Standard Instrument Approach Procedures Under 14 CFR Part 97.
“Special” Instrument Approach Procedures
Requests For Waivers Of Standards.
FAA types of procedures:
Public IAPs: CFR Part 97 (Regulatory), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-1
Special IAP’s: Order 8260.19C (Enabled), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-400
SIDs, STARs: TERPS, Flight Checked> National FLIGHT Data Digest (NFDD)
Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFPs): NFDD
Engine Out Procedures (EOPs): Developed By Operator, Accepted By POI
Cheers
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again". Andre Gide (1869-1951)
regards,
FDR
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
JAR/EU:
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] :
Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].
FAA:
AC120-91:
MISSED APPROACH VS REJECTED LANDING: A One-Engine-Inoperative Missed Approach Can Frequently Be Flown Following The Published Missed Approach Procedure. Rejected Landing May Require Some Other Procedure
FAA reqt for OEI procedures on Departure:
Sections*121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, And 135.398
"The Takeoff Flightpath Must Meet The Specified Obstacle Clearance Requirements In The Event Of An Engine Failure. CFR Part 97 Applies To Standard Instrument Approach Procedures"
AC120-91 preamble exclusions (Page 1):
The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are neither mandatory nor the only acceptable methods for ensuring compliance with the regulatory sections. Operators may use other methods if those methods are shown to provide the necessary level of safety and are acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This AC need not serve as the sole basis for determining whether an obstacle analysis program meets the intent of the regulations. However, the methods and guidelines described in this AC have been derived from extensive FAA and industry experience and are considered acceptable to the FAA when appropriately used. Mandatory words such as “shall” or “must” apply only to those who seek to demonstrate compliance to a specific rule by use of a method set out in this AC without deviation.
AC120-91 Page 15/20:
17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.
a. General.
(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.
NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.
(3) A distinction needs to be made between a missed approach and a rejected landing. A one-engine-inoperative missed approach from the minimum descent altitude (height) (MDA (H)), decision altitude (height) (DA (H)), or above can frequently be flown following the published missed approach procedure. A rejected landing from a lower altitude may require some other procedure (e.g., following the same one-engine-inoperative procedure as used for takeoff). In any case, the pilot should be advised of the appropriate course of action when the published missed approach procedure cannot be safely executed.
b. Assessment Considerations.
(1) Operators may accomplish such assessments generically for a particular runway, procedure, aircraft type, and expected performance, and need not perform this assessment for each specific flight. Operators may use simplifying assumptions to account for the transition, reconfiguration, and acceleration distances following go-around (e.g., use expected landing weights, anticipated landing flap settings).
(2) The operator should use the best available information or methods from applicable AFMs or supplementary information from aircraft or engine manufacturers. If performance or flightpath data are not otherwise available to support the necessary analysis from the above sources, the operator may develop, compute, demonstrate, or determine such information to the extent necessary to provide for safe obstacle clearance.
(3) The operational considerations should include:
(a) Go-around configuration transitions from approach to missed approach configuration, including expected flap settings and flap retraction procedures.
(b) Expected speed changes.
(c) Appropriate engine failure and shutdown (feathering if applicable) provisions, if the approach was assumed to be initiated with all engines operative.
(d) Any lateral differences of the missed approach flightpath from the corresponding takeoff flightpath.
(e) Suitable balked landing obstacle clearance until reaching instrument approach, missed approach, or en route procedurally protected airspace.
(f) Any performance or gradient loss during turning flight.
(g) Methods used for takeoff analysis (such as improved climb), one-engine-inoperative maximum angle climb, or other such techniques may be used.
(h) Operators may make obstacle clearance assumptions similar to those applied to corresponding takeoff flightpaths in the determination of net vertical flightpath clearance or lateral track obstacle clearance.
c. Assessment Conditions for Balked Landing.
(1) A “balked landing” starts at the end of the touchdown zone (TDZ). A TDZ typically is considered to be the first one-third of the available landing distance or 3,000 feet, whichever is less. When appropriate for the purposes of this provision, operators may propose to use a different designation for a TDZ. For example, alternate consideration of a TDZ may be appropriate for runways:
(a) That are less than 6,000 feet in length and which do not have standard TDZ markings;
(b) That are short and require special aircraft performance information or procedures for landing;
(c) That are for Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft; or
(d) Where markings or lighting dictate that a different TDZ designation would be more appropriate.
(2) An engine failure occurs at the initiation of the balked landing from an all-engines-operating configuration.
(3) Balked landing initiation speed > VREF or VGA (as applicable).
(4) Balked landing initiation height is equal to the specified elevation of the TDZ.
(5) Balked landing initiation configuration is normal landing flaps and gear down.
(6) At the initiation of the maneuver, all engines are at least in a spooled configuration.
d. “One-Way” Airports or Other Special Situations.
(1) Where obstacle clearance is determined by the operator to be critical, such as for:
(a) Airports in mountainous terrain that have runways that are used predominantly for landing in one direction and takeoff in the opposite direction (“one way in” and “opposite way out”); or
(b) Runways at which the planned landing weight is greater than the allowed takeoff weight.
(2) The operator should provide the following guidance to the flightcrew:
(a) The flightpath that provides the best ground track for obstacle clearance, and
(b) The maximum weight(s) at which a missed approach or rejected landing can safely be accomplished under various conditions of temperature, wind, and aircraft configuration.
18. ALTERNATE MEANS.
The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are not the only acceptable methods. An operator who desires to use an alternate means should submit an application to the CHDO. The application should describe the alternate assumptions, methods, and criteria to be used along with any other supporting documentation. The CHDO will forward the application through the FSDO (CMO/certificate management unit (CMU)) to the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, for review and approval, if appropriate.
ORIGINAL SIGNED by
Carol Giles for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service
suggest you contact:
FAA AFS-400, [email protected], or alternatively call:
(202) 385-4670
AFS-400 responsibilities:
Policies, Criteria, And Standards For Establishing And Maintaining Terminal And En Route Flight Procedures
Final Authority To Issue, Amend And Appeal Standard Instrument Approach Procedures Under 14 CFR Part 97.
“Special” Instrument Approach Procedures
Requests For Waivers Of Standards.
FAA types of procedures:
Public IAPs: CFR Part 97 (Regulatory), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-1
Special IAP’s: Order 8260.19C (Enabled), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-400
SIDs, STARs: TERPS, Flight Checked> National FLIGHT Data Digest (NFDD)
Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFPs): NFDD
Engine Out Procedures (EOPs): Developed By Operator, Accepted By POI
Cheers
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again". Andre Gide (1869-1951)
regards,
FDR
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FE Hoppy, it seems you've answered your own question. Perhaps rereading the alternative methods will help. Let's consider a practical example Zurich ILS 16 CAT I approach, shall we? If you chose DA of 1590 your required MA CG is 5%, isn't it? As we saw it earlier you must be able to fly it in EO conditions, don't you? My questions is: are you gonna follow published MA in case of SE GA at DA assuming A320 performance data? Will you fly published MA in case of a GA from 100 ft AAL as well?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@9.G
FE Hoppy, it seems you've answered your own question. Perhaps rereading the alternative methods will help. Let's consider a practical example Zurich ILS 16 CAT I approach, shall we? If you chose DA of 1590 your required MA CG is 5%, isn't it? As we saw it earlier you must be able to fly it in EO conditions, don't you? My questions is: are you gonna follow published MA in case of SE GA at DA assuming A320 performance data? Will you fly published MA in case of a GA from 100 ft AAL as well?
OPS 1.510 covers the missed approach requirements including the need to satisfy the published climb gradient when above 2.5% or a minimum of 2.5% when the DH is below 200'. But, in both cases the procedures assume the GA begins at or above the published minima.
The case under discussion is that of a single engine landing climb from below minimum. As described in 17 item 3 of FDRs post above. The FAA have been very clear with their guidance so this thread is closed from an FAA operators point of view and I thank FDR for the excellent post. However, the EASA EU perspective is still open as there is no equivalent guidance in the EU references given thus far.
OEI Landing Climb???
from BC0S's original post:
FE... ;
this thread is about engine out G/A's below minima, refer 1st post. This related to whether there needs to be a plan to follow something other than the published MAP if the landing is balked below minima, on one engine out....
"A goal without a plan is just a wish"
Antoine de Saint-Exupery, (1900-1944)
CS 25.119 Landing climb: all-engines-operating
In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3•2%, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting (see AMC 25.119); and
(a) In non-icing conditions, with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(i); and
(b) In icing conditions with the “Landing Ice” accretion defined in Appendix C, and with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(ii).
[Amdt. No.:25/3]
Thats all engines for Landing Climb.
Approach climb Engine out performance is covered as
CS 25.121 Climb: one-engine-inoperative (See AMC 25.121)
(d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding the normal all-engines-operating procedure in
hich VSR for this configuration does not exceed 10% of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating
landing configuration:
(1) The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2•1% for two-engined aeroplanes,
2•4% for three-engined aeroplanes and 2•7% for four-engined aeroplanes, with –
(i) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the go-around power or thrust setting;
(ii) The maximum landing weight;
(iii) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1•4 VSR; and
(iv) Landing gear retracted.
(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (d)(1) of this paragraph must be met:
(i) In non-icing conditions; and
(ii) In icing conditions with the Approach Ice accretion defined in Appendix C. The climb speed selected for non-icing conditions may be used if the climb speed for icing conditions, computed in accordance with sub-paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this paragraph, does not exceed that for non-icing conditions by more than the greater of 5.6 km/h (3 knots) CAS or 3%.
[Amdt. No.:25/3]
And of course for nett, subtract 0.8%. Nett is where the real world (read obstacles) live. If your twin climbs on a single engine at MLW gear and flaps down, good for you. If you want to climb via a PANS OPS MAP procedure after a balked landing engine out, again.... good for you. If you are a 4 holer operator, not a big problem, so long as you don't lose the next one (that has only happened about a dozen times, IIRC). As you have indicated it isn't a situation that you are likely to ever experience so that should be an end for it. Unfortunately, as a postholder, under JAR/EASA or FAA that would probably be unwise, and would bite back, certainly it was an audited item on the last JAA/EU AOC I developed, and was also audited by EASA on behalf of JAA. As a pilot, under the FAR, you would also of course end up with CFR 14 Part 91.7 biting you financially, but the upside is that for about a year or so, you wouldn't have to pay for board or lodging. Don't want to get a cell with "Bubba" though.
To put a numeric solution to your question about SINGLE ENGINE LANDING CLIMB, Boeing at least provides that as advisory information, in the QRH PI 13.12 (for the B777):
The B777-200ER/PW4090's, F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL, available climb rate is 120 FPM, GROSS.
The B777-300ER is much more powerful as it is standard with the GE-115B engine...
The -300ER achieves a F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL EO ROC of -30FPM.
SE Landing Climb re G/A? you get what you pay for... Hence the reason the approach climb is where you need to get to fairly quickly. And if the OEI landing climb is considered an unlikely condition to find yourself in, think about the alternate gear extension + 1 pidgeon.
"The highest result of education is tolerance".
Helen Keller, (1880-1968) "Optimism", 1903
cheers,
FDR
If you are unlucky enough to find yourself below minima on a single engine approach when you find the runway to be blocked and forced to go around, would you:
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)
FE... ;
this thread is about engine out G/A's below minima, refer 1st post. This related to whether there needs to be a plan to follow something other than the published MAP if the landing is balked below minima, on one engine out....
"A goal without a plan is just a wish"
Antoine de Saint-Exupery, (1900-1944)
CS 25.119 Landing climb: all-engines-operating
In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3•2%, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting (see AMC 25.119); and
(a) In non-icing conditions, with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(i); and
(b) In icing conditions with the “Landing Ice” accretion defined in Appendix C, and with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(ii).
[Amdt. No.:25/3]
Thats all engines for Landing Climb.
Approach climb Engine out performance is covered as
CS 25.121 Climb: one-engine-inoperative (See AMC 25.121)
(d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding the normal all-engines-operating procedure in
hich VSR for this configuration does not exceed 10% of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating
landing configuration:
(1) The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2•1% for two-engined aeroplanes,
2•4% for three-engined aeroplanes and 2•7% for four-engined aeroplanes, with –
(i) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the go-around power or thrust setting;
(ii) The maximum landing weight;
(iii) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1•4 VSR; and
(iv) Landing gear retracted.
(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (d)(1) of this paragraph must be met:
(i) In non-icing conditions; and
(ii) In icing conditions with the Approach Ice accretion defined in Appendix C. The climb speed selected for non-icing conditions may be used if the climb speed for icing conditions, computed in accordance with sub-paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this paragraph, does not exceed that for non-icing conditions by more than the greater of 5.6 km/h (3 knots) CAS or 3%.
[Amdt. No.:25/3]
And of course for nett, subtract 0.8%. Nett is where the real world (read obstacles) live. If your twin climbs on a single engine at MLW gear and flaps down, good for you. If you want to climb via a PANS OPS MAP procedure after a balked landing engine out, again.... good for you. If you are a 4 holer operator, not a big problem, so long as you don't lose the next one (that has only happened about a dozen times, IIRC). As you have indicated it isn't a situation that you are likely to ever experience so that should be an end for it. Unfortunately, as a postholder, under JAR/EASA or FAA that would probably be unwise, and would bite back, certainly it was an audited item on the last JAA/EU AOC I developed, and was also audited by EASA on behalf of JAA. As a pilot, under the FAR, you would also of course end up with CFR 14 Part 91.7 biting you financially, but the upside is that for about a year or so, you wouldn't have to pay for board or lodging. Don't want to get a cell with "Bubba" though.
To put a numeric solution to your question about SINGLE ENGINE LANDING CLIMB, Boeing at least provides that as advisory information, in the QRH PI 13.12 (for the B777):
The B777-200ER/PW4090's, F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL, available climb rate is 120 FPM, GROSS.
The B777-300ER is much more powerful as it is standard with the GE-115B engine...
The -300ER achieves a F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL EO ROC of -30FPM.
SE Landing Climb re G/A? you get what you pay for... Hence the reason the approach climb is where you need to get to fairly quickly. And if the OEI landing climb is considered an unlikely condition to find yourself in, think about the alternate gear extension + 1 pidgeon.
"The highest result of education is tolerance".
Helen Keller, (1880-1968) "Optimism", 1903
cheers,
FDR